Know what is in your environment

February 4, 2011

Another delay in CPSIA lead-law enforcement

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has vote, for a sixth time, to extend the stay of enforcement on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).  The stay will be until December 31st, 2011 and is pertaining to total lead content in children’s products (except for metal components of children’s metal jewelry) and on the certification and independent third-party testing requirements for lead and other heavy metals permitted in children’s products.

This stay does not apply to the federal regulation and limits on lead, however, General Certificates of Conformity (GCC) are not required on children’s products other than painted surfaces and children’s jewelry.  This means that businesses are still required to ensure that their children’s products do not contain any levels of lead above the regulated limit of 300 Parts Per Million (PPM) for all children’s products and 90 PPM for painted surfaces.

Children’s metal jewelry and painted surfaces need to be tested by third-party independent laboratories that utilize specific “destructive” testing methodologies such as ASTM-F963.  Businesses selling children’s products need to ensure that their products to not contain lead and other metals passed certain limit standards set with the CPSIA, but they do not need to have their children’s products certified and tested by third-party laboratories until December 31st, 2011, except for painted products and children’s jewelry.

Businesses big and small now have an additional ten months to begin certification testing which can be very expensive.  Certification testing was set to begin February 11th 2011 and each test can cost potentially hundreds of dollars.

X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing is one such way for businesses to test children’s products to determine if those products contain lead or other potentially regulated heavy metals and limit testing expenses.  XRF analyzers are a non-destructive, often hand-held device that uses X-rays and spectral analysis for positive identification of elements.  Testing costs are typically between $3 and $10 per test.

Essco Safety Check is helping manufactures, importers, retailers, charities and other businesses with helping to identify if lead or other regulated metals are present in consumer products and other items.

Know what is in your environment!

Share


Essco Safety Check

January 8, 2011

Lead, cadmium and other heavy metals found in children’s products donated and given away.

At this time of year, charities give away new toys, clothing, accessories, jewelry and more to citizens can’t afford to buy them.  For the second consecutive year, Essco Safety Check provided free X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing to help identify certain products that may contain potentially harmful elements in those donated products.  Any item that was found with potentially harmful elements was not given away.  It was taken to be re-analyzed.

Items found to contain heavy metals

Found in some of the consumer products that were tested was lead, cadmium, antimony and other heavy metals.  The biggest offenders were purses, jewelry and ceramics, of which several of the items could be considered children’s products.  Children’s products are subject to regulations regarding the amount of lead that is permitted in the item.  The legal limit in total content that is permitted in a children’s products is 300 parts per million (PPM), unless it is a painted item, and, that amount of lead permitted is only 90 PPM. 

Essco Safety Check does not know who donated the items, when they were donated, if the items were purchased brand new and then brought immediately to the charity or if these items were purchased ten years ago and now just being donated.  Essco Safety Check has attempted to contact each manufacturer or importer of the items with information that was found about each product.  Of the findings, the readings are from X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers which determine if the heavy metal is present and how much is present in total content.
 
Several name brand items were found to contain lead in including;

  • A Hello Kitty purse was found with lead at almost 4500 PPM in the vinyl part of the purse; which is 15 times over the legal limit for lead in a children’s product.
  • A Disney “My first pooh bank” (a ceramic) was found with almost 7400 PPM of lead; which is over 24 times the legal limit for lead in a children’s product, this item also was found to contain cadmium.   (According to a company representative this item was last imported in 2004, but was still in its originial packaging when tested)
  • A duffel bag with “Microsoft” printed on the bag with over 3500 PPM of lead; which is almost 12 times over the legal limit for a children’s product (I don’t believe this product is a child’s product) but this product also appears to have cadmium.
  • Several other purses were found to contain 1000s of PPM of lead, as well as a ceramic mug which appears to have lead in the glaze or ceramic at about 8400 PPM of lead which is 28 times over the legal limit for lead in a children’s product, this ceramic looked designed for a child.

    Another example, one brand of jewelry tested appears to contain high quantities of lead in the metal.  In several pins, which according to the company’s compliance officer is not considered a child’s product, was last manufactured in 2005.  Since these products were manufactured before the Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was enacted, the law establishing limits of lead in children’s products, this product and other products are not subject to the regulations.  This creates a potential problem because these items are grandfather in.  This jewelry was found to contain lead in the metal ranging from 21.96% to 47.39% and antimony from 8084 PPM to 1.43%.  These are unacceptable amounts.  Even though the compliance officer said the pins were not designed or marketed to children, some people may think otherwise because of the packaging and design. In another piece of jewelry from the same distributor (again packaging appears to target children) was found with 4.69% of lead.

    The pin found with 47.39% lead contains 1580 times the legal limit.

    These results pose several questions:

    1.  What are charities or thrift stores suppose to do to ensure the safety of the products that they donate or sell?  How do we let the public know that these products are not regulated the same as new products?
    2.  How is the CPSC going to protect children from potentially harmful items if regulations are only applied to new purchases, yet some newly donated items, are in-fact several years old and thus grandfathered in the regulations?
    3.  Why do we have different regulations for different products?  Children’s products, medical devices, ceramics, all have different regulations regarding heavy metals, unless they are designed and marketed to children. 

    In discussions with the product manufacturers and importers Essco Safety Check found out that several of the products tested were in-fact several years old and no longer being manufactured.  These products appeared to look new and be in their original packaging.  All companies that Essco Safety Check spoke to were looking into these issues.

    Just because there is something potentially harmful in your environment does not mean that it will harm you, however, if you know what is in your environment you can mitigate harm.

    Share


    Essco Safety Check

    October 14, 2010

    Lead isn’t the only thing being found in bounce house materials; arsenic and antimony are also found.

    Children playing in a bounce house

    In August of 2010, a lawsuit was filed by the office of Attorney General Jerry Brown of California claiming that unsafe levels of lead were being found in bounce houses.  The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) in Oakland, California initiated the suit.  The CEH found levels of lead in the vinyl up to 2.9% or 29,000 parts per million (PPM).  The federal limit for lead in a children’s product is 90 PPM for painted surfaces or 300 PPM for non-painted surfaces.

    Recently my company, Essco Safety Check, preformed X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing of vinyl samples of materials that bounce houses are made of, and like CEH, we found lead, however we also found fairly high levels of arsenic and antimony.  The lead levels were found with a high of approximately 11,000 PPM but overall percentages of lead found were lower than that of antimony and arsenic. Lead was found to contain more than 500 PPM in 16.2% of the samples, however, 500 PPM of arsenic was found in 24.3% of the samples and 500 PPM of antimony was found in 86.5% of the samples.

    Here are some general numbers of the samples we tested.

    Antimony found with more than 1000 PPM in 86.5% of the samples tested
    Arsenic found with more than 1000 PPM in 21.6% of the samples tested
    Lead found with more than 1000 PPM in 8.1% of the samples tested
    Antimony found with more than 5000 PPM in 35.1% of the samples tested
    Arsenic found with more than 5000 PPM in 13.5% of the samples tested
    Lead found with more than 5000 PPM in 2.7% of the samples tested

    I’m not exactly sure why arsenic would be found in the vinyl materials of bounce houses, potentially as a stabilizer in Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) production, however, antimony is potentially used as a fire retardant. 

    The CPSC is currently attempting to decide what exactly is the definition of a children’s product, I’m not sure that a bounce home a children’s product.  I’m not even sure that the CPSC knows this answer.  In discussions with several people in the “know” about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), they are not sure if this is a child’s product.

    However, in the vinyl materials that were tested, lead, arsenic and antimony were found.  Now I want to stress that all testing done was with an XRF analyzer which tests for total content.  Lead is the only element that has a total content standard within the CPSIA, antimony and arsenic (among other elements) have voluntary soluble standards according to ASTM F963.  The results shown are NOT a soluble reading, but total content. 

    Now just because the samples we tested were found to contain lead, antimony and arsenic does not mean that all bounce houses have these elements.  However, the material PVC is known for its ability to leach heavy metals.  All the samples tested were made of PVC. 

    In producing PVC a lot of Chlorine (Cl) is used (some estimates say that 40% of the worlds chlorine is used to make PVC) and of course there is Hydrogen (H).  If H & Cl combine, they form Hydrochloric Acid (HCl), to prevent this the PVC manufactures add stabilizers, sometimes they use heavy metals such as lead, or maybe in this case arsenic. 

    In a study that Essco Safety Check did with a few local laboratories in 2008 & 2009 lead was detected in PVC material and subjected to a variety of conditions of heat.  Lead was found to accumulate on the surface and leach from the PVC material, the more heat, the more leaching.  I wonder if this could be happening in these materials.

    We know that exposure to lead can cause a variety of mental and physical conditions including; learning disabilities, behavioral problems, seizures, coma and even death.

    Bounce house

    Picture the beautiful summer evening at your towns 4th of July celebration, its 90 degrees and you’re having fun.  Your children want to go play in the bounce houses, children love these activities.  You say go play, have fun, don’t hurt yourself.  Little did you know that the act of playing in these houses could be potentially harmful to your child, all because of what they are made of.

    Regardless if the CPSC determines that bounce houses are in-fact children’s products and subject to CPSIA regulations, why would you need to put these potentially harmful elements like lead, arsenic or antimony in this product or other children’s and consumer products?

    Knowing what is in your environment is important, especially to children and pregnant women. 

    Know what’s in your environment and mitigate harm!

    Share


    Essco Safety Check

    October 7, 2010

    Common Sense! My take on the CPSIA and the definition of a children’s product.

    How do you define a children’s product?  This is the question that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is trying to answer and relates directly to the Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 which regulates how much lead and other potentially harmful toxicants are permitted in products designed and marketed for children 12 years of age and younger.  The CPSIA also regulates how the children’s products are tested and by whom.  The question of “what is the definition of a children’s product?” is unfortunately causing strife for small and large businesses that manufacture, import or sell children’s products.  Businesses everywhere are asking for exemptions from this law, claiming that there products are not “children’s products.” 

    As a business owner of an environmental testing and software company, Essco Safety Check, who has been helping parents and businesses “know what is in their environment” since 2007, I have a unique perspective on this situation.  We have performed testing services for moms and dads who are very curious and care about what is in their child’s environment.  We have helped businesses that manufacture and sell their products, know what their products are made with.  We understand the retailer and what concerns them, their customer and the bottom line.  We have helped small business owners trying to sell quality handmade products, or the mom and pop crafter making baby products, trying to supplement their income.  We’ve been involved with children’s advisory safety councils with Washington State, as well as, discussions with the CPSC, EPA and FDA about a variety of environmental issues. 

    With all of this insight I wanted to propose a common sense approach to the CPSIA; the definition of children’s products and how to solve this issue, reducing testing expenses, insuring safety, save businesses billions of dollars (also see), while creating jobs and improving lives.

    Why do we have so many different regulations for so call “consumer products”?  Why does a child’s product have a different regulation and testing requirements than medical products, ceramics, and personal care items?  Do you know that medical devices, which are not considered consumer products, don’t have to be tested lead?  This includes toothbrushes, dental floss, bulb syringes and surgical tubing.  Do you know that ceramics in the kitchen can contain lead and cadmium and that they are regulated differently than toys? 

    Currently, the definition of a “children’s product” as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is, a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.

    Are these children's products?

    Is a football a child’s product?  What about model trains?  What about Halloween costumes?  What about tooth brushes?  What about bounce homes?  What about ceramics that children eat off of? Do you see where I’m going with this?  There would be a lot of specifics to make this definition accurate.  Is a science kit, which is intended for learning, a child’s product?  If so, then the paperclip in this product needs to be tested for lead, but if a teacher walks into an office supply store and buys paperclips in a box, those don’t need to be tested.   If a lamp has childish embellishments on it, it needs to be tested for lead, but that same lamp without the embellishments doesn’t need to be tested.

    Please read and article by Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press and an article by Andrew Martin of the New York Times

    Children have access to most, if not all, products in the home that are not considered children’s products, other consumer products and non-consumer products.  Wouldn’t it be easier, more prudent, and to the benefit of everyone’s health if we just said, “we don’t want lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other potentially harmful heavy metals and chemicals in products other than…”?  Is it possible that the constant exposure of these heavy metals is contributing to our decline in academics (math, science and English scores) or to disorders such as autism and ADHD? 

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some beneficial usages for lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, but not in toys or other children’s products, or ceramics a child drinks out of or eats off of.   What about a pregnant woman, do we want them to have access and exposure to harmful heavy metals?   I think that all people should want to limit their toxic exposure from these potentially harmful elements we find in our homes or at work.   Why do we find lead in toys, ceramics and jewelry?   We even find lead in protein drinks!  Is it because corporations are trying to save a penny here and a penny there?  Does it make sense that we permit these potentially harmful heavy metals in the consumer products and medical devices used daily by ordinary people, including children and pregnant women?

    If we start to think like this, we do not need to define what a children’s product is, and only define what materials or which certain items do not need to be tested for these heavy metals.   If we test products in our environment that we interact with, our children and even our pets interact with, we can reduce potential toxic exposure.  This doesn’t just mean toys!  It should include our schools, daycare centers, what’s in our kitchens, what’s at the hospital and the like.  Wouldn’t you want to live in a home with the least number of potentially harmful items, especially homes with children and pregnant women?

    Do you know that the CPSIA requires that all children’s products must be tested by a third party independent accredited laboratory?  These laboratories use a destructive, expensive testing method, typically ICP-MS or AAS to look for lead and other heavy metals.  Typical costs can range from $50 to $300+ per test.  Unfortunately, not all manufactures have to abide by this rule, Mattel applied and was granted the ability to do their own testing in-house (in my opinion, this creates a huge market advantage to them and harms the small business owner).  Other large manufactures/importers have also asked the CPSC to be exempt from having to use a third party independent accredited laboratory and therefore they could control their testing expenses more while be self monitored. 

    As far as testing to ensure that products “children’s products” and all other consumer products and non consumer products we interact with don’t have lead we should utilize low cost, accurate, portable technologies to reduce the overall testing expenses. This would create a reasonable testing program for consumer and non-consumer products.

    If we started to test all products that citizens use in the home or at work for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals with X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers, a non-destructive, scientifically accurate, low-cost testing system, we could effectively reduce the potential for harm while reducing overall testing costs.  The use of XRF analyzers with appropriate data collection and analysis can become a screening platform to test for heavy metals.  This can help businesses be in compliance with CPSIA regulations, while reducing their testing costs, helping get products to market faster, and putting thousands of people to work, creating small businesses to help other businesses.  Did I mention that if we test all products, we’d reduce our overall toxic exposure?

    If a manufacturer has their raw materials or products tested with XRF analyzers and no lead is found, why would you need to do further expensive, destructive testing?  However, if lead or other potentially harmful elements are found, then further testing should occur if the manufacturer wants to use that material in the product they are selling.

    If we start to think like this, then we realize that we don’t need to define what a child’s product is, but rather products in general and the materials that they are made of.  I would hope that the surgical tubing a child or pregnant woman uses at a hospital has been tested for lead and other harmful metals and chemicals.  I would hope that the toothbrush a pregnant mom uses is tested as strictly as her child’s toothbrush.  I would hope that coffee cup a child uses for their hot chocolate is tested for heavy metals and that those regulations are as stringent as a children’s product.  I would hope that the soccer field made of field turf is tested for heavy metals and that the levels are below what is for children’s products. 

    If we use common sense, reducing the amount of toxic materials in our environment, combined with a low-cost, accurate, screening system, we could reduce testing expenses for businesses, insuring safety, creating jobs and improving lives.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to apply one testing standard to the things in our environment, the toys, ceramics, jewelry, housing, paint, pocketbooks, footballs, baby bottles, etc?  Why so many different regulations?  Why do so many companies want to have their products not regulated like a children’s product?  Are they afraid of what may be found in the materials that make up their products?

    My version of common sense means that we wouldn’t need to debate what a child’s product actually is, rather, treat all consumer products and like items the same, insuring we don’t have any potentially harmful heavy metals in our homes.  If we decide which materials and what products don’t need to be tested for lead because there is a benefit to the use of lead in that item, we don’t need a definition.  All of this will help to reduce potential toxic exposure to children, pregnant woman and everyone else, don’t forget about the workers making the products, all of this insures safety.  Other benefits include the creation of jobs, businesses helping businesses, the reduction in overall testing costs and improving lives.

    What do you think?

    Share


    Essco Safety Check

    September 7, 2010

    Essco Safety Check makes interesting finds using XRF analyzers

    For almost three years, Essco Safety Check has been providing X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) services to help people and businesses know what is in their environment.  We started to help moms and dads know if their children’s toys had any harmful levels of lead or other potentially harmful heavy metals and have been involved in several national recalls for lead and cadmium in children’s products.

    We have expanded services to include certified home and property lead inspections, risk assessments, HUD inspections and Renovation, Repair & Painting (RRP) Inspections.

    We have provided services to toy wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers.  We have done testing for county health departments, state and federal agencies.  We have helped real estate professionals sell homes, and assisted remodelers, home inspectors and other housing professionals.  We work with families of autistic children and can help anyone or any business know what is in their environment.

    Recently, I was out performing an in-home inspection and found lead in wall paper.  This was a new experience for me and after further testing, I was able to identify that the back side of the wall paper was made of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC).  The lead and other heavy metals found when testing the wall paper was most likely from the PVC and the back side of the wallpaper not the painted surface.

    Contractors, remodelers and homeowners should be aware that there is a potential for lead to exist in wallpaper.  Older homes that contain wallpaper with a PVC or film backing should be aware that lead and other heavy metals may be present.  Creating dusts from this substrate could be potentially harmful. 

    In addition, contractors should be aware that tile may contain harmful levels of certain heavy metals including lead.  If you are doing remodeling, renovation or painting that disturbs a painted surface or tile, use caution and be aware that the dust you create could be potentially harmful to you, your workers and the people or children in the home.

    Other interesting finds and subjects of upcoming or past blogs include lead and other heavy metals found in:

    Bounce Homes
    Protein Drinks
    Field Turf

    Bumbo Seats
    Facial Creams and other personal care items

    Know what is in your environment!

    Share


    Essco Safety Check

    May 24, 2010

    Do you know what a consumer product is? (Part 1)

    Typical household consumables

    Most people would think that the “products” you and your children use every day in your daily routine are “consumer products”, you know the things we cook, eat and drink with.  Most people would think that “products” put in your mouth, given to us or used on us by a hospital while we are patients, are tested for lead and other harmful chemicals.  Most people would think that the regulating agencies are fully protecting us and inspecting all “products.”  Most people would be wrong!

    A “consumer product” is regulated by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and their definition of a consumer product is:

    any article, or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise;

    There are some exemptions that we will get to in a moment. 

    According to the CPSC, they are “charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of consumer products and they are committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children.”  Essentially, the CPSC is working to ensure the safety of consumer products from harming the public.

    Why are some “products” that consumer’s use on a regular basis not considered “consumer products”?  Why are these “products” not regulated or tested for heavy metals and chemicals as a children’s product would be?  Why are these “products” regulated by different governmental agencies?  And why do those agencies have different ways of testing and regulating for lead? 

    Simply put, why do we permit lead and other harmful elements and chemicals into our “consumer” and “non-consumer products”? 

    Why does the FDA, which regulates all food surface contact points, have a different testing regulation for lead than a child’s product?  Doesn’t a child eat off of a typical dinner plate, and drink hot chocolate out of a standard coffee cup?  Why is a product that we all put into our mouth, not tested for lead?

    Because these “products” are not considered “consumer products” and ultimately not “children’s products” which means that they are not required to be tested for lead or phthalates.  You may want to ask your legislator!

    Here are a few examples of items that you may think are “consumer products” but in fact are not considered “consumer products” and thus not regulated by the CPSC.  These “products” can all be used by children, all have a potential for direct epidermal contact or direct ingestion potential. In each case, these products are regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and some have regulations for lead and others do not, but none are regulated for “total content” of lead and thus are all permitted to have more than 300ppm of lead (the legal amount of lead in a toy “children’s product”).

    1. Toothbrushes
    2. Toothpicks
    3. Dental Floss
    4. Band Aides
    5. Bulb Syringes
    6. Surgical Tubing
    7. Flatware (Knives, forks, baby spoons, serving utensils, etc…)
    8. Ceramics (plates, cups, bowls, etc)
    9. Cutting boards
    10. Pots, pans and other cooking utensils.

    There whole crux of this is that there is no real definition of a “consumer product.”  Most people would think that a toothbrush is a consumer product and since children use toothbrushes, they would be inspected for lead.  Most people would be wrong!

    Toothbrushes and other patented early intervention dental products which are designed or intended for children 12 years of age or younger are in fact, not “consumer products” and because these products are not “consumer products” they do not fall within the definition of children’s products that require third-party testing.  Thus the lead limits in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) do not apply to this product. 

    Have you considered what is in your plates, dishes or your coffee cups?  Do you know that FDA regulates the food contact surface of a coffee cup and the CPSC regulates the exterior, non-food contact surface?

    How is this protecting the public?  

    Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco Safety Check) is here to help bring awareness and share information about environmental concerns.  Feel free to visit our website for more information www.essco-safetycheck.com 

    Keep you eyes out for “Part 2″ of this story, more specific information on State and Federal regulations.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    May 6, 2010

    Thoughts on consumer products, pregnant women and your kitchen

    In reaction to what has been going on in the news and marketplace lately i have decided to post some thoughts based on providing consumer protection to mitigate potential harm. 

    Are you aware that many OTC consumer products aren’t tested for heavy metals because they’re not considered consumer products?
    Think toothbrushes, dental floss and other oral hygiene products.  Would you believe that they are not considered consumer products?  These items are considered medical devices and even thought they are designed or used by children, they do not fall within the definition of children’s products that require third-party testing for heavy metals as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). 
     
    Pregnant women & children absorb the same percentage of the toxins that they ingest.  Don’t you think that the products pregnant women use be regulated the same as a child’s product?
     “Pregnant women use all different types of consumer products, including medical devices.  Children and pregnant women absorb 30-50% of the lead they ingest while adults absorb only about 10% – this is because lead substitutes for calcium and the growing body needs more calcium.  One of the many reasons kids are more sensitive to lead exposure.”[1]

    Contamination continues in the kitchen; do you know what is in your kitchen cabinets?
    In my experience, the typical kitchen contains the most number of potentially harmful metals and toxins.  Lead and other heavy metals have been found in cutting boards, plates, coffee cups, serving utensils, pots and pans and other typical kitchen items.  If a ceramic has a chip or crack in the glaze, there is the potential that toxins could be leaching into the food or beverage that you ingest. 

                                                     ———————

    My name is Seth Goldberg and I own an environmental testing and software company, Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco Safety Check).  We specialize in using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers and our own proprietary software to identify and analyze potentially harmful and regulated heavy metals (elements like lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic and others) in consumer products, housing and various other materials.  Our clients include moms and dads, homeowners, businesses, industries and governments who want to “know what is in their environment.”  We have been providing these services since 2007 and have been involved in three national recalls, including taking part in an AP investigation about cadmium in children’s jewelry in January 2010. 

    The recent recall in children’s OTC products, spurred my concerns that some typical consumer products which are purchased OTC and are routinely used by all consumers, including children and pregnant women, are not considered consumer products and thus are not subject to particular regulations that implore safety and mitigate harm.  I can supply specific data and links to all information mentioned above.

    You can learn more about our company at www.essco-safetycheck.com 

    Please let me know if you have any questions.

    [1]  Steven Gilbert, PhD, DABT

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    April 27, 2010

    Small environmental testing company impacts one of the world’s largest businesses, Wal-Mart.

    For almost three years, Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco – Safety Check) has been providing elemental testing services to moms & dads, homeowners, businesses and industries, to help them “know what is in their environment.”   We have performed tens of thousands of tests and have collected extensive data about consumer products and the elements that are present in them.   We are a small company trying to help people and businesses, improving lives and create jobs all with the use of X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers and a proprietary software suite to collect and analyze data.

    In October 2009, Essco Safety Check participated in the Northwest Children’s Environmental Health Forum by presenting data on heavy metals found in children’s products.  This data was analyzed for specific elements (cadmium and lead) and then the results were shared with Associated Press reporter Justin Pritchard over November and December of 2009.  Here is a link to our typical findings from an in-home inspection.

    On January 10th, 2010, Justin Pritchard wrote an article “AP: Feds probe cadmium in kids’ jewelry from China.”  Apparently, the Associated Press conducted their own independent testing (based on initial data supplied from Essco Safety Check and HealthyStuff.org) of children’s jewelry purchased in New York, Ohio, Texas and California.  Their testing was conducted by chemistry professor Jeff Weidenhamer of Ashland University of Ohio, who has worked with the CPSC in the past. The results found cadmium in children’s jewelry at a level of 100,000 PPM (10%) or greater in 12 percent of the 103 items tested. 

    Children's jewelry recalled for cadmium 1/29/10

    Children's jewelry recalled for cadmium 1/29/10

    On January 29th, 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of children’s metal necklaces because of high levels of cadmium.  In corporation with F.A.F. of Greenville, R.I. about 55,000 units were recalled. The products recalled are shaped as a frog pendant or metal crown on a metal chain necklace.  The model #’s are 4616-4187 & 4616-4190 with UPC #’s 72783367144 & 72783367147.  These items were sold exclusively at Wal-Mart Stores nationwide from November 2009 to January 2010 for approximately $5.
    Yesterday, April 26th, 2010 Wal-Mart issued a statement on cadmium and new testing standards that all Wal-Mart suppliers will have to comply with.  These standards are more stringent than the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), and all toys, child care articles, children’s costume jewelry and children’s jewelry craft making kits tested on or after April 9th, 2010 are now required to meet Wal-Mart’s new voluntary standards.

    The new testing standards will be modeled similarly to the European Union, EN 71-3:1995 “Safety of toys – Part 3: Migration of Certain Elements” but will not affect what is currently on the store shelves.

    In short, this means that the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, is now imposing new testing standards to help protect consumers from cadmium; this is a very good thing.  These new standards are taking affect immediately and will help prevent toxic toys, jewelry and other children’s products from reaching the marketplace.  There is a feeling of “wow and awe” that a small environmental testing company (Essco Safety Check) who shared data about children’s products and the heavy metals we found in them, can impact the largest retailer in the world.  The data shared lead to an investigation by the Associated Press and now, today, Wal-Mart has issued new testing standards that all suppliers must meet.

    Do you know what is in your environment?  Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    April 12, 2010

    Star Wars figurines found with cadmium and lead, say it isn’t so Yoda!

    Say it isn't so Yoda!  Cadmium and Lead found in Star Wars Figurines

    Say it isn't so Yoda! Cadmium and Lead found in Star Wars Figurines

    Owning an environmental testing company, I am fairly numb as to where I find certain heavy metals like lead.  However, today I must say I’m saddened to find lead and cadmium in toys I use to play with as a child and know that many of these toys are still around today, in homes with children.

    Over the weekend, I was contacted by a concerned mother of two beautiful boys; she wanted to make sure that the toys and items they would play with are free from environmental toxicants.   This morning she visited our office (Essco Safety Check) to have me test some items from lead using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers, however, I found more than just lead, I found cadmium too.

    The problem with today’s test is much like every other day, the randomness as to where I find, what I find.  Why does one figurine have lead or cadmium and another doesn’t?  It could be the coloring agents, or it could be involved in the making of plastic, or just a random element mixed in to the item during production.  But regardless, it is present and was found in some fairly high quantities.  

    Today I tested approximately 30 Star Wars figurines and found approximately half to contain lead or cadmium.  You should note that these Star Wars figurines I tested and found with lead or cadmium are from 1977, 1979 & 1980 (marked on each figurine), they are fairly old and were manufactured before particular regulations regarding lead.  But regardless of when they were manufactured, some of these figurines contain harmful heavy metals, making them toxic toys.

    Yoda contains approximately 1,800 PPM of cadmium, along with a Luke Skywalker figurine and Boba Fet figurine, while Lando Calrissian appears to have over 1% lead (over 10,000 PPM) in his vinyl cape.  Many other figurines had levels of cadmium ranging from 250 PPM to over 600 PPM. 

    What does all of this mean?  You should be aware that your children could have “hand-me-down” toys that could be considered toxic toys. 

    Have you given your children toys from your childhood to play with?

    Share

    March 26, 2010

    CPSC held a webinar today – A guide for small businesses for complying with the CPSIA.

    Filed under: Events, News, Regulation — Tags: , , , , , — Seth Goldberg @ 12:01 pm

    Today, Friday, March 26, 2010, 11:00 a.m. EDT the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) held a webinar to help small businesses understand complying with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), specifically with the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA).

    Gib Mullan, Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations for the U.S. CPSC gave the presentation as a “flow chart” and a “guide to help” webinar attendees understand which requirements apply to their products.

    Essco Safety Check did not submit any specific questions for this webinar, but is constantly fielding questions about the CPSIA from small businesses.  It is our goal as a company to help businesses know what their products are made of using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers.

    Here are some highlights to what the CPSC presented and where to find the specific information as well as some questions asked.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    The first basic question is do you make a children’s product? 

    A “children’s product” means a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. In determining whether a consumer product is primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or younger, the following factors will be considered:

    • A statement by the manufacturer about the intended use of the product, including a label on the product if such statement is reasonable.
    • Whether the product is represented in its packaging, display, promotion or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years of age or younger.
    • Whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger.

    Requirements include:

    CPSIA Section 101. Children’s Products Containing Lead; Lead Paint Rule http

    CPSIA Section 102. Mandatory Third Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products 

    CPSIA Section 103. Tracking Labels for Children’s Products 

    Statement of Policy: Testing and Certification of Lead Content in Children’s Products

    Section 101 of the CPSIA says that products designed or intended primarily for children 12 years old and younger (“children’s products”) cannot contain more than 300 parts per million (ppm) of lead in any accessible part, this is the “lead content limit.”  In addition to the 300 ppm content limit, there is a 90 ppm limit on lead in paint used on certain products such as furniture and children’s toys.

    The CPSC issued guidance in August, 2009 to determine accessible parts.  

    There have been determinations to identify materials whole lead content will not exceed 100 ppm and they include natural products, dyed and un-dyed textiles, cotton, wool, wood, paper, precious and semi precious stones.

    But they do not include metal or plastic fasteners such as buttons, screws, grommets or sippers used in apparel or elsewhere.

    Section 102 – Mandatory third party testing for certain children’s products.

    Children’s products must be certified based on testing by a recognized third party test laboratory.  These requirements are being phased in over time.

    Lead limits on most children’s products do not have to be certified until 2/10/2011 However, children’s jewelry must be certified to the 300 ppm lead content limit if that product was manufactured after 8/14/09 and any painted product would need to meet 90 ppm lead content limit.

    Third-Party Testing of Children’s Products

    The new legislation imposes an additional third-party testing requirement for all consumer products primarily intended for children twelve years of age or younger. Every manufacturer (including an importer) or private labeler of a children’s product must have its product tested by an accredited independent testing lab and, based on the testing, must issue a certificate that the product meets all applicable CPSC requirements.

    CPSC is given authority either to accredit laboratories (“third party conformity assessment bodies”) for doing the required testing of children’s products or to designate independent accrediting organizations to accredit the testing laboratories, with one exception. The Commission itself must accredit laboratories that are controlled by the manufacturer of the children’s product in question. To assure their impartiality, government labs must also meet strict standards of independence. The CPSC must maintain an up-to-date list of accredited labs on its web site. CPSC has authority to suspend or terminate a laboratory’s accreditation in appropriate circumstances.

    The third-party testing and certification requirements for children’s products are phased in on a rolling schedule. The statute requires the CPSC to issue laboratory accreditation regimes for different categories of children’s products. Once the CPSC issues the laboratory accreditation requirement for that category of children’s products, each children’s product in that category that is manufactured more than ninety days after that date must be tested and certified to the applicable requirements. The schedule for CPSC to issue the laboratory accreditation requirements and the certification schedule is set forth on the timeline shown in the chart below.

      CPSC Publishes Accreditation Procedure Third Party Testing required
    Lead Paint September 22, 2008* December 22, 2008
    Cribs and Pacifiers October 2008 January 2009
    Samll Parts November 2008 February 2009
    Metal Jewelry December 2008 March 2009
    Baby Bouncers, Walkers and Jumpers March 2009 June 2009
    300 ppm Lead Content May 2009 August 2009
    CPSC Children’s Product Safety Rules June 2009 September 2009

    To find a recognized lab for the specific scope of inspection you are looking for please visit http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/labapplist.aspx, make sure that the lab is certified for your specific test requirements.  Not all labs are certified for all testing procedures.

    Section 103 Tracking labels for children’s products

    Section 103(a) of the new law requires manufacturers to have a tracking label or other distinguishing permanent mark on any consumer product primarily intended for children twelve and younger. The tracking label must contain certain basic information, including the source of the product, the date of manufacture and more detailed information on the manufacturing process such as a batch or run number. The scope of this provision is quite broad in that it applies to all children’s products, including, but not limited to, items such as clothing or shoes not just toys and other regulated products. Congress modified the requirement for tracking labels with the phrase “to the extent practicable” recognizing that it may not be practical for permanent distinguishing marks to be printed on small toys and other small products that are manufactured and shipped without individual packaging.

    The Commission has the authority to issue a rule further defining the detail required in the tracking labels. Moreover, the Commission also has the ability to require in the future that the additional information contained on tracking labels for children’s products be expanded to cover all consumer products.

    Section 103(c) of the new law also addresses the types of claims a manufacturer can make regarding its compliance with mandatory or voluntary safety rules. After October 12, 2008, no product packaging, advertisements or labels can refer to any safety standard unless the product complies with that standard.

    Effective Date: The requirement for tracking labels is effective one year after the date of enactment or August 14, 2009. The requirements prohibiting advertising claims are effective 60 days after enactment or October 13, 2008.

    Here is the Statement of Policy: Interpretation and Enforcement Of Section 103(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

    Which requirements apply?
    Is your product a children’s article or furniture that bear paint or similar surface coating?
    Is your product intended for under 36 months?
    Is it a child care article for children under 4?
    Durable nursery product for children under 5?
    Is your product a toy?
    Is it clothing or children’s sleepwear?
    The paint limit standard under the CPSIA, Section 101 is 90 ppm and took effect on 8/14/09.   It applies the same to items as previsouly sold under the 600 ppm limit

  • Paint sold to consumers
  • Articles intended for children
  • Household furniture
  • Children’s products manufactured after 8/14/09 must be certified to the 90 ppm limit if they bear paint or similar surface coatings.

    “Small parts” ban for all items that are intended for children under 36 months of age.

    Small parts are “as received” or under “use and abuse” testing.  Basically you can have little parts when you open a package or if it is tested for example using a pull test or drop test, small parts can’t be the result from the test.
     Small parts are those fitting ht a small part cylinder (it is close to the size of a toilet paper roll, but a little smaller)

    Here is the regulatory summary for small parts regulations, toys and products intended for use by children under 3 years old

    Here is the regulatory summary for lead contain paint

    Here is the regulatory summary for children’s sleepwear

    Here is the regulatory summary for clothing textiles

    Other regulatory summaries can be found here

    Phthalates

    Section 108. Products Containing Certain Phthalates

    Good news!  Phthalate testing is for plasticized components only.  The limit is 1000 ppm for the 6 phthalates.

    There was brief mention of:

    Section 104. Standards and Consumer Registration of Durable Nursery Products

    and

    Section 106. Mandatory Toy Safety Standards

    Some questions included:

    When does a choke hazard warning need to be used?
    If you make an item for children under 3 years old, small parts are banned.  Toy or games for children 3 to 6 years old, but not all products, some craft products are not thought of as toys or games and thus a choke warning is not needed.

    Tracking labels, what does ascertain mean? 
    Ascertain means information about the product doesn’t’t need it to be on the product as long as the consumer has the ability to get to the information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  No phone numbers unless that phone is manned 24 hours a day.  A web solution is the best choice if you don’t want to put this information on your product.

    Children’s jewelry, is it the same definition as California? And are hair accessories considered jewelry? 
    Hair accessories are not considered jewelry by the CPSC, the they are considered accessories by California.

    Screen printing?  There is not just one type of screen printing.  The key to regulation is to the process and if that process creates a surface coating? 
    If that process creates a surface coating than that would require a lead test.  Many if not most create a coating and subject to the 90 ppm lead limit.  If the process/ink/dye sinks in to the fabric than you are subject to the 300 ppm limit.  If you have dye, you can do determinations and take advantage of these rules and say a dye is ok.  You must be confident and knowledgeable about the products.

    This was just some highlights from today’s webinar.  The CPSC will be posting a link to the video, when they make it available, I will post a link to it here.

    If you have any questions, please contact us at info@essco-safetycheck.com

    Share

    Essco Safety Check

    Promote Your Page Too

    Older Posts »

    Powered by WordPress